August 20, 2004

(Roy. Just Roy.) wrote in message :

(Thomas Lee Elifritz) wrote in message :

It's very simple, hydrocarbon combustion and human overpopulation are
destroying the world.

The reasons these storms seem so much worse today a

[nonsense snipped]

Total lack of reading comprehension noted.

http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu.../2004/aug2004/

http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

Another idjit, broke, in debt.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

SwimJim wrote:

Mike1 wrote in message


(SwimJim) wrote:


He should have said "only the current Presidential Administration in
the United States is out of touch with reality" to be a little more
accurate.


Yeah, like *China* is breakin' is hind-end to sign Kyoto.



Where did I mention Kyoto? I don't support it. Being out of touch
with reality means recognizing that global warming is going to be a
problem requiring real action with solutions that work. Because I
don't think that the Kyoto Protocol is a solution that would work, I
don't support it. (However, I do support the UN Framework Treaty on
Climate Change.)


Let me respectfully disagree. Kyoto is about setting up a framework,
just as the
Montreal Protocols were originally.

josh halpern

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:17:45 GMT, Psalm 110
wrote:

slut.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:54:40 -0500, David Ball
wrote:

You can't prove a negative, Alastair. Please note that I
haven't said it hasn't played a role. I have said that there is
absolutely no way for you to define in any quantitative way the extent
of its role. Given that, making strident claims that it is the
proximate cause is just silly.

Yes, the most definitely is a way of proving CO2 increases have played
a role in all of the weather.

* CO2 increases are a proven fact -- no argument.
* CO2 retains in the close surface atmosphere, thermal energy in the
infrared bandwidth, (heat energy to most people).
* Heat energy is ENERGY, and increases in energy in every system have
effects, including increasing energy content in weather systems.
* The amount of energy which can be retained in CO2 can be calculated
withing a given precision range.
* The amount of excess or surplus energy in any weather system because
of excess CO2 can be calculated. That portion of excess energy has
impacted the weather to that degree.

This is YOUR specialty. You are supposed to be gathering the data that
elucidates the quantifiable differences and you have faided to
perform.

Your method of data storage is based on your prejudicial bias that
there is nothing "special" going on, so you file the data in ways that
blur the specialness. An average of one drought plus one flood can be
hidden in a yearly "average" to produce "normal precipitation" for the
year, totally hiding the specialness and falsifying the meaning of the
data.

You have exposed your bias, your blockheadness. You are unfit to
participate in science discussions coming with preconceptions that
falsify results.

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 02:53:13 GMT, Psalm 110
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:54:40 -0500, David Ball
wrote:

You can't prove a negative, Alastair. Please note that I
haven't said it hasn't played a role. I have said that there is
absolutely no way for you to define in any quantitative way the extent
of its role. Given that, making strident claims that it is the
proximate cause is just silly.

Yes, the most definitely is a way of proving CO2 increases have played
a role in all of the weather.

Let me say it again, only this time I'll use really small
words so you can understand...CO2 increase is undoubtedly affecting
weather and climate. That is a given. What you cannot do is claim that
the cause of every single severe weather event is caused by increases
in CO2.
Look at it this way, we're finishing up the coldest summer on
record here, colder even than during the post Pinatubo summer. In
terms of significant weather, this has been an extreme summer. Is CO2
increase the cause? If it is, prove it? Tell me exactly how increased
CO2 produced the persistent long-wave trof off the west coast of North
America with the associated trough parked over the northern plains and
the eastern Prairies. Don't use any hand-waving arguments like those I
deleted, but be specific. Ensure that you are considering fundamental
atmospheric processes in your discussion.
The fact of the matter is, weather, and therefore climate,
never has A cause. It has myriad causes. You can have two seemingly
identical days and the causes may be very different. Increasing CO2
merely adds another potential cause to the list. CO2 is well mixed in
the atmosphere. Given that, why have temperatures not increased year
after year? CO2 levels have. Why was 1999 colder than 1998? CO2 levels
were higher. Maybe there are other factors at work that can and often
do overcome the effects of increasing CO2. Time to use that grey
matter between your ears Psalm. You don't want to appear like a lying
fraud, do you?

On 20 Aug 2004 09:04:05 -0700, (SwimJim)
wrote:

Mike1 wrote in message ...
(SwimJim) wrote:

He should have said "only the current Presidential Administration in
the United States is out of touch with reality" to be a little more
accurate.


Yeah, like *China* is breakin' is hind-end to sign Kyoto.

Where did I mention Kyoto? I don't support it. Being out of touch
with reality means recognizing that global warming is going to be a
problem requiring real action with solutions that work. Because I
don't think that the Kyoto Protocol is a solution that would work, I
don't support it. (However, I do support the UN Framework Treaty on
Climate Change.)

Playing Devil's Advocate for a minute, if we can't get
something relatively minor like Kyoto agreed on how do you propose we
arrive at a solution that will work that everyone is happy with? We're
getting to the point where we need to start running, but we haven't
even figured out how to walk yet.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:17:43 -0500, David Ball
wrote:

CO2 increase is undoubtedly affecting
weather and climate. That is a given.

We agree. This point is no longer arguable.

What you cannot do is claim that
the cause of every single severe weather event is caused by increases
in CO2.

A percentage of EVERY SINGLE WEATHER EVENT is caused by CO2 increases.
No event has zero causal relevence. Now it is the job of aware science
to tease out of the data what, if anything, this means in terms of
human impacts by weather.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:17:43 -0500, David Ball
wrote:

Look at it this way, we're finishing up the coldest summer on
record here, colder even than during the post Pinatubo summer. In
terms of significant weather, this has been an extreme summer. Is CO2
increase the cause? If it is, prove it?

I already have.

* CO2 increases are a proven fact -- no argument.
* CO2 retains in the close surface atmosphere, thermal energy in the
infrared bandwidth, (heat energy to most people).
* Heat energy is ENERGY, and increases in energy in every system have
effects, including increasing energy content in weather systems.
* The amount of energy which can be retained in CO2 can be calculated
withing a given precision range.
* The amount of excess or surplus energy in any weather system because
of excess CO2 can be calculated. That portion of excess energy has
impacted the weather to that degree.

We are discussing SURPLUS ENERGY in the global weather system,
commonly called "warming" because it is thermal infrared energy. Don't
let the label fool you. "Warnig" is not what we are alert for -- it is
energetic behaviors that dissipate energy from the system.

Quite obviously some of that energy is dissipated in melting ice. Some
of it is dissipated in alterations of the jet streams. Some is
dissipated in thermals which achieve stratospheric heights.

The weather you get is an exact precise reflection of the energy in
the system at each moment in time. What science has not done is go
beyond the local provincial weather reporting to "WORLD GAME" (named
by Buckminster Fuller) total system awareness over extended periods of
time.

Show me the full globe satellite coverage in the important bandwidths
on a 24/7/365 basis. Show me the 15 minute, or even 4 hour, interval
maps and I will play the images in fast-time, one every two-seconds,
over a season or a year, or two years, and build up a precise exact
prediction where major events will happen and what exact course they
will take.

Your playing devil's advocate (as a specimen of millions of a type)
only delays the expendatures that have to happen before the most
rudimentary science is achieved. Currently, weather forecasting is
more witchcraft than science, and important events go unforecast ten
minutes before they begin. You are not being helpful getting the
science to BEGIN.

We have the tools that Bucky could not imagine when he devised the
World Game. In the 1960's he proposed monstor mainframes would require
the total global awareness to be located in one room. He failed to
predict or imagine an internet.

I use google, which has 4,500 global news agencies, with multiple sets
of eyes per each node, and I get data that the government weather
services of the world are consistently failing to provide me. While
these news guys don't know what to report as of scientific interest,
their reports are not biased -- they report what is important to them
but include plenty of extractable tidbits of data available nowhere
else.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:20:05 -0500, David Ball
wrote:

Playing Devil's Advocate for a minute, if we can't get
something relatively minor like Kyoto agreed on how do you propose we
arrive at a solution that will work that everyone is happy with? We're
getting to the point where we need to start running, but we haven't
even figured out how to walk yet.

Not everybody has waited until the holocaust is inevitable. The Devil
has plenty of advocates. It's time to get out of the role before you
get lumped in as the devil himself.

The corruption of government is linked to the corruption of industry
is linked to the corruption of science. That's why ridding industry of
corruption cleans up science, and ridding politics of corruption
cleans up science, or ridding science of corruption cleans up politics
and industry.

We don't need "Kyoto". Kyoto was an agreement to begin doing "right"
instead of "wrong". What we need is to begin doing right instead of
wrong, regardless of whatever you call it. There is no time like the
present, no place better than where one is.

Psalm 110 wrote in
:
* CO2 increases are a proven fact -- no argument.
* CO2 retains in the close surface atmosphere, thermal energy in the
infrared bandwidth, (heat energy to most people).
* Heat energy is ENERGY, and increases in energy in every system have
effects, including increasing energy content in weather systems.

Read up on your thermodynamics! Heat cannot be transformed into mechanical
energy. Temperature differences can, but mechanism whereby a warmer world
will cause more severe weather is a bit more subtle that you make it
appear. Mainly the increased, and non-linear vapor pressure of water is to
blame.